Bill reins in land grabs

State deal would aid private owners, allow O'Hare expansion

April 20, 2006|By Christi Parsons, Tribune staff reporter.

SPRINGFIELD — In a move that could make it much more difficult for the government to seize private property, the Illinois House on Wednesday overwhelmingly approved a compromise measure that has tacit consent from wary municipal leaders.

Key to the agreement is a guarantee that Chicago city officials can continue their expansion of O'Hare International Airport under the current laws, which give them sweeping powers to condemn private property in suburban communities bordering the airfield. Nearly 1,000 special redevelopment districts now active around the state could also continue operating under the old rules.

But the vast majority of private property owners in Illinois would get stronger protections in cases where government officials want to take their land for use by the community. The bill would put a greater burden on government officials to show why they want to condemn a piece of property. It also would increase the amount of money they have to pay if they succeed.

"The pendulum is swinging in favor of the private property owner in Illinois," said Rep. John Bradley (D-Marion), a Downstate lawyer and sponsor who negotiated the agreement. "These are substantial wins for the private landowner, but it's also something that the municipalities can live with."

The measure passed the House by a vote of 85-6 and now heads to the Senate, which easily passed an earlier version of the bill last month. Gov. Rod Blagojevich has yet to weigh in on the issue and aides said Wednesday that they would study the complex legislation.

The bill is a response to the U.S. Supreme Court's controversial decision last year that said public bodies can take privately held land even for the purpose of giving it to another private owner for economic development. The decision ignited a public furor, and lawmakers in many states moved to protect--and reassure--private property owners.

The Illinois legislation would put the burden on public officials to justify in court the need to condemn private property. Current law generally puts the responsibility on the private property owner to prove that the government's condemnation plan is unjustified. The legislation would raise the bar even higher in some cases where local officials want to take private land for private development. In those instances, the bill would also require that government officials meet the civil court system's standard of "clear and convincing" evidence that the condemnation is necessary.

If the condemnation were needed to clean up blight, however, the higher standard wouldn't apply, even in cases where the land was being seized for private development.

And in all condemnation cases, the condemning authority would have to pay the owner not only the fair market value of the property but also some relocation expenses, attorneys' fees and other costs.

"Now, people will know exactly what their rights are," said state Sen. Susan Garrett (D-Lake Forest), the Senate sponsor. "This lays out how condemning authorities and private property owners are to work together to get a fair solution."

Though lawmakers of both parties say they like the idea of standing up for private property owners, the proposal ran into trouble because of concerns from municipal officials all over the state. They were afraid that raising the legal standards would make it too hard to continue current cleanups of blighted areas and other public projects.

"The costs will be greater as a result," said Roger Huebner, general counsel for the Illinois Municipal League, which represents more than 1,100 municipalities in the state. "It increases the litigation expense for condemnation and the costs of relocation."

In Chicago, officials were worried that the proposal could bog down redevelopment efforts in about 150 special improvement districts around the city. On a grander scale, they feared the changes could seriously hamper plans to expand and modernize O'Hare.

But in recent weeks opponents worked out an agreement with lawmakers that exempts the O'Hareproject, as well as the hundreds of existing tax increment financing districts in the state, from the new rules.

The city and the municipal league aren't thrilled about the impact of the tougher proposals on future projects, but their lawyers say they are relieved by the compromise provisions.

"They're basically intended to protect development that are already under way, where there have been large expenditures on the assumptions that they'd be able to be completed," said Steve Holler, a lawyer for the city. Holler said the new bill would "tilt the playing field" in favor of private property owners, and echoed concerns that the change will make future projects more expensive.

Lawmakers say the trade-off is worth it.

"One of the major reasons this country was formed was on the basis of private ownership of property," said Rep. Terry Parke (R-Hoffman Estates). "People want the ability to negotiate in good faith for their property that they own, and that they have, for themselves and the future of their families."

Bradley, the House sponsor, agreed.

"If you're going to take someone's property," Bradley said, "you should have to justify what you're doing."